Electric Cars May Not Be So Green

[stromboli]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_CLIMATE_FUEL_EFFECTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- People who own all-electric cars where coal generates the power may think they are helping the environment. But a new study finds their vehicles actually make the air dirtier, worsening global warming.

Ethanol isn't so green, either.

"It's kind of hard to beat gasoline" for public and environmental health, said study co-author Julian Marshall, an engineering professor at the University of Minnesota. "A lot of the technologies that we think of as being clean ... are not better than gasoline."

The key is where the source of the electricity all-electric cars. If it comes from coal, the electric cars produce 3.6 times more soot and smog deaths than gas, because of the pollution made in generating the electricity, according to the study that is published Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. They also are significantly worse at heat-trapping carbon dioxide that worsens global warming, it found.

The study examines environmental costs for cars' entire life cycle, including where power comes from and the environmental effects of building batteries.

"Unfortunately, when a wire is connected to an electric vehicle at one end and a coal-fired power plant at the other end, the environmental consequences are worse than driving a normal gasoline-powered car," said Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science, who wasn't part of the study but praised it.

The states with the highest percentage of electricity coming from coal, according to the Department of Energy, are West Virginia, Wyoming, Ohio, North Dakota, and Illinois.

Still, there's something to be said for the idea of helping foster a cleaner technology that will be better once it is connected to a cleaner grid, said study co-author Jason Hill, another University of Minnesota engineering professor.

The study finds all-electric vehicles cause 86 percent more deaths from air pollution than do cars powered by regular gasoline. Coal produces 39 percent of the country's electricity, according to the Department of Energy.

But if the power supply comes from natural gas, the all-electric car produces half as many air pollution health problems as gas-powered cars do. And if the power comes from wind, water or wave energy, it produces about one-quarter of the air pollution deaths.

Hybrids and diesel engines are cleaner than gas, causing fewer air pollution deaths and spewing less heat-trapping gas.

But ethanol isn't, with 80 percent more air pollution mortality, according to the study.

"If we're using ethanol for environmental benefits, for air quality and climate change, we're going down the wrong path," Hill said.

This is something I wondered about for awhile. We talk about electric vehicles, but nobody mentions the source of the electricity.   I always thought hybrid vehicles make sense because they generate their own electricity using the engine, which overall saves money, and also clean diesels. I would like to see clean diesel engines available for every car. It turns out that there has actually been resistance to clean diesels in cars and until now they have not been produced is not because of lack of interest, but because of stalling by the industry; since only one company at present sells clean diesels in the US (Volkswagen) it would make sense to push that technology, and I'm surprised no one else is.

I had a co-worker years ago who had a diesel engined Isuzu. They definitely are being made and sold in other countries. But I thought Ethanol was less of a pollutant, so that is a surprise. The bottom line is we need to get rid of coal power plants.

[Johan]

Well yes and no. This study is a little disingenuous since it breaks out the states where the most coal generation takes place but (apparently) makes absolutely no attempt to break out where the most pure electric vehicles are being sold and/or used. Hint: If I were a betting man, I'd say West Virginia ain't exactly where you're going to find nations largest segment of tree huggin' fart smellin' smug holier than thou assholes that are most likely to be the ones to buy all electric cars.  In fact, I'd be willing to bet that West Virginia and Wyoming are among the states with lowest number of all electric vehicles per capita.

Just another example of making the numbers mean what you want them to mean in order to make scary headlines IMO.

[SGOS]

NPR, I think it was brought this up a couple of years ago.  Not that it hadn't already occurred to many people.  Coal fired electricity is a filthy proposition.  And of course, the cost of owning an electric car is significantly higher, while it may contribute to even more pollution.  That's not a great trade off.

[Sal1981]

I think it just shows that coal-burning power plants are the problem, not electric cars, IMO.

[stromboli]

I think it just shows that coal-burning power plants are the problem, not electric cars, IMO.

Right. Like I said, we need to get rid of coal burning power plants or come up with an alternative. In Britain they have a coal burning plant where the scrubbed emission chemicals are siphoned off and added to Limestone to make sheet rock. The sheet rock plant is within a few hundred yards of the power plant. The process neutralizes the chemicals and creates a useful byproduct.

[SGOS]

Right. Like I said, we need to get rid of coal burning power plants or come up with an alternative. In Britain they have a coal burning plant where the scrubbed emission chemicals are siphoned off and added to Limestone to make sheet rock. The sheet rock plant is within a few hundred yards of the power plant. The process neutralizes the chemicals and creates a useful byproduct.

I recall they tried this in the US, but for some reason the sheet rock had some problems with it that made it unusable.  Then they just abandoned the project.  I can't even remember where I heard that, and I'm not sure I'd trust the reasons that were given for the failure.  Good ideas can die because someone pays off a congressman to kill a competitor's challenge.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Brits had solved the problem, however.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

Get rid of coal? Good luck as long as new nuclear plants are off the table because people misunderstand statistics. That and the fact that nuclear = bomb in people's heads.

[stromboli]

Get rid of coal? Good luck as long as new nuclear plants are off the table because people misunderstand statistics. That and the fact that nuclear = bomb in people's heads.

Which is why I posted this thread

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=6750.0

[PickelledEggs]

My brother mentioned this a while ago. And while initially, the source can be scattered, the transition to clean/renewable energy (which we would need to do anyway) will replace the sources that pollute, like coal-based power plants.  Coal and oil is not going to last forever and the sooner the people in power realize that and invest in the transition, the better.

Once we have enough wind farms, hydro farms, and solar energy farms... we won't be having this discussion.

[doorknob]

Nuclear energy is not clean at least not in the U.S. It might be clean when the waist is recycled but here in the states as far as I know it is illegal to recycle nuclear waste out of fear of terrorists getting their hands on it. Not sure exactly why that's more of a threat then them getting hands on nuclear waste in the first place. Even then the radioactive pollution that is leaked from power plants is not environmentally friendly.

And if you think it is then go take a gieger counter and start testing the environment and animals surrounding the plant.

[PickelledEggs]

Nuclear energy is clean as long as it doesn't backfire. It's a hazard that is waiting to happen. We all saw what happened to Chernobyl. It will be thousands upon thousands of years before that area is even remotely inhabitable. It's not a risk worth taking.

[stromboli]

Nuclear energy is not clean at least not in the U.S. It might be clean when the waist is recycled but here in the states as far as I know it is illegal to recycle nuclear waste out of fear of terrorists getting their hands on it. Not sure exactly why that's more of a threat then them getting hands on nuclear waste in the first place. Even then the radioactive pollution that is leaked from power plants is not environmentally friendly.

And if you think it is then go take a gieger counter and start testing the environment and animals surrounding the plant.

Everything I've read about Thorium reactors shows promise. The one being designed/built in India has been planned to be super safe and last much longer than a U-235 reactor. I was in the nuclear navy aboard a reactor powered ship, so I know a little about the upside and downside. The upside is that you get enormous power from a small plant, the downside is waste and the potential for disaster.

Thorium supposedly eliminates the waste issue and the fuel is hugely abundant- a thousand times more prevalent than Uranium.

Here is an article you can peruse for your information. We chose Uranium over Thorium initially because Uranium can be made into a weapon, Plutonium.
http://www.troymedia.com/2013/08/08/thorium-a-safer-cheaper-option-to-uranium-for-nuclear-power/

[The Skeletal Atheist]

Nuclear energy is not clean at least not in the U.S. It might be clean when the waist is recycled but here in the states as far as I know it is illegal to recycle nuclear waste out of fear of terrorists getting their hands on it. Not sure exactly why that's more of a threat then them getting hands on nuclear waste in the first place. Even then the radioactive pollution that is leaked from power plants is not environmentally friendly.

And if you think it is then go take a gieger counter and start testing the environment and animals surrounding the plant.

The thing is even on the radiation front nuclear is better than coal. With coal you're digging up shit that's underground and burning it. Not just it though, but the radioactive elements that are found in tiny amounts in it.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

While nuclear accidents are indeed terrifying, they are few and far between. Coal, natural gas, and other fossil fuels, on the other hand, have many more incidents and casualties.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power.html

http://www.livescience.com/13876-nuclear-energy-dangers-coal.html

With other sources just starting up or stalling, I think that nuclear is the greenest way to go for energy at least for now.